Why Doesn't EWG Publish The Names
Of Food Stamp Recipients?
It's a question I regularly hear in my numerous meetings with farmers--usually from a guy in the back of the room, his arms folded in pique, his tone defensive, not to say indignant. We get asked online, too, owing, no doubt, to the fact that the Food Stamp Program costs taxpayers even more ($28.6 billion in FY 2005, serving 25.7 million people monthly) than farm subsidies cost most years. Subsidy proponents, in particular, like to point out that the Food Stamp Program is the single biggest ticket item in the farm bill.
The question of who is receiving food stamps might be of policy interest if the benefits that taxpayers provide under the program varied as dramatically as they do under the farm subsidy programs; but they don't. Some of the most important questions in farm policy arise precisely from the vast disparities we see across farm subsidy recipients, due to differences in what they produce (most farmers collecting no subsidies); farm size; and questions surrounding the income and wealth of the recipients (questions our database cannot answer).
But there are no mysteries or surprises on these scores for the Food Stamp Program. Everyone gets roughly the same amount (within a narrow range determined by income and a few deductible expense), we know how much it is (and it's not much), and we know the recipients officially are very poor (see below). This year each Food Stamp Program participant will get about $1.05 cents a meal--and it's falling. No food stamp program participant receives $10.50, $1,050, $10,500 or $105,000 per meal. When poverty and unemployment rates go up, so do the food stamp rolls.
In fact, the average food stamp benefit per household in 2005 was $209 per month--about twenty five hundred bucks a year. Again, no food stamp household gets $25,000, $50,000 or $250,000...and so forth per year. Ironically enough, that 2005 average for food stamp households is just slightly more than the bottom 80 percent of farm subsidy recipients averaged in (calendar) 2005. But Congress has hardly favored food stamps over farm subsidies in recent years--far from it.
There is, of course, the matter of waste, fraud and abuse, which should not be tolerated in any government program. But USDA generally is considered to have been more vigilant about waste, fraud and abuse in the Food Stamp Program than it has been in its scrutiny of farm subsidies. In the case of food stamps, most of the payment "error" arises from case workers, not applicants, and those errors commonly result in underpayment of benefits.
If you'd prefer a video version of the Food Stamp Program, its history, integrity, and bi-partisan support, see this fine short feature produced for the leading authority on the Food Stamp Program, our friends at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Here are some other things we know from USDA's research about food stamp recipients as of fiscal year 2005:
Most food stamp recipients were children or elderly. Half (50 percent) were children and another 8 percent were age 60 or older.Many food stamp recipients worked. Nearly three out of ten (29 percent) food stamp households had earnings in 2005, and four out of ten (40 percent) participants lived in households with earnings.
The majority of food stamp households did not receive cash welfare benefits. Only 15 percent of all food stamp households received TANF benefits. That's a big change from 1990, when 42 percent of all households received cash welfare benefits and only 19 percent had earnings. Twenty-seven percent received Supplemental Security Income. Almost one quarter (23 percent) received Social Security benefits.
Less than 12 percent of food stamp households had incomes above the poverty line--which is $20,600 for a family of four this year and was $19,350 in 2005--while 40 percent had incomes at or below half the poverty line.
The average food stamp household possessed only about $137 in countable resources (including the non-excluded portion of vehicles and the entire value of checking and savings accounts and other savings). Over two thirds (70 percent) had no countable resources. Compare that with just one measure of the economic standing of households receiving farm subsidies: household income.
Of course, if assets were taken into account, the comparison between food stamp and farm subsidy households becomes even more ludicrously strained.
Finally, most food stamp households were small--average size being 2.3 people.
A second reason for not posting food stamp recipients is that they meet the exemption test of the Freedom of Information Act because the program is means tested: applicants must demonstrate they do not exceed the brutally low financial threshold for program eligibility. A family of four, for instance, can't have a gross monthly income above $2,167, or a net monthly income above the poverty line ($1,667).
As Judge Paul Friedman put it, ruling in favor of disclosing the names of cotton subsidy recipients to The Washington Post in 1996 (the legal basis for the EWG Farm Subsidy Database):
None of the information at issue in this case is stigmatizing, embarrassing or dangerous; it does not expose these cotton farmers to creditors; and it reveals nothing about the success or failure of the farm or the wealth or poverty of the recipient. By contrast, Judge Penn withheld the names of individuals who had defaulted on their student loans because of the highly sensitive nature of that very piece of information, namely, the fact that the person defaulted.
Under FOIA, the names of food stamp recipients would be 'highly sensitive' because that information would reveal their low income status. As farm subsidy recipients often take pains to emphasize, their government payments are not welfare but rather a business arrangement with the government. No one has to prove that they have any financial need whatsoever in order to collect farm subsidies, because there is no test of need. The only "means test" is that subsidy applicants come in under $2.5 million in adjusted gross income annually, the so-called "Charles Schwab" provision of the 2002 Farm Bill. If most of that income comes from agriculture, however, even that 'restriction' does not apply. It has disqualified almost no one.
Of course, the Bush administration's proposal to limit farm subsidies to those earning less than $200,000 adjusted gross income (income after all regular and business deductions) introduces the very notion the subsidy lobby wishes to avoid: targeting subsidies to family farms based on need, and a rather generous test of need at that, since fewer than 3 percent of all taxpayers file returns with AGIs above $200,000.
Perhaps the subsidy lobby will embrace an income test in the hope of evading FOIA disclosure. Now there's a debate worth joining...
BTW: Here's Friedman's ruling in full, and the key passages are in the jump.
From Friedman's decision, which, again, the government did not appeal[emphasis added]:
The USDA asserts that the privacy interests of cotton program recipients would be invaded if their names, addresses and the amount of subsidy they received were disclosed because they could be subject to unwanted commercial solicitations and possibly unwarranted media attention. Def.'s Mot. at 9-10, 13. Defendant [USDA] relies heavily on NARFE v. Horner, where the D.C. Circuit declined to release the names and home addresses of retired or disabled federal employees to the National Association of Retired Federal Employees because the court feared that the retirees, who received monthly annuity payments from the government, would be subjected "to an unwanted barrage [**7] of mailings and personal solicitations" and that such a barrage would be contrary to the "ancient concept that a man's [sic] home is his castle." NARFE v. Horner, 879 F.2d at 876.The nature of the list sought by plaintiff in this case does not create the same sort of personal privacy concerns or invite the kind of unwarranted intrusions that would justify nondisclosure. The only individualized information that would be ascertainable from the release of the list is that a particular individual grows cotton, the address of the farm where the cotton is grown and where the subsidy is received, and how much of a subsidy that cotton farmer received in 1993. It might also be deduced from the amount of the subsidy how much cotton the producer grew in 1993. The Court is unable to discern, nor have defendants persuasively explained, how any of this relatively generic information about thousands of similarly situated businesspeople could lead to clearly unwarranted invasions of their personal privacy. Indeed, it is precisely because the list is so large and the information so generic that the individual privacy interests are so small. See Kurzon v. Department of Health and Human Services, [**8] 649 F.2d 65, 69 (1st Cir. 1981) ("The loss of privacy involved in disclosing the identities of all applicants is minimal; it is only the fact [that an applicant was rejected] that raises the possibility of an invasion of privacy.") (emphasis in original). n3
n3 None of the information at issue in this case is stigmatizing, embarrassing or dangerous; it does not expose these cotton farmers to creditors; and it reveals nothing about the success or failure of the farm or the wealth or poverty of the recipient. By contrast, Judge Penn withheld the names of individuals who had defaulted on their student loans because of the highly sensitive nature of that very piece of information, namely, the fact that the person defaulted. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. United States Department of Education, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17780, 1990 WL 251480, Civil Action No. 90-1392 (D.D.C. Dec. 21, 1990). See also Department of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. at 176 (denying release of records under the FOIA because information sought would identify persons who cooperated with State Department investigation of Haitian government's human rights record and its release could subject them to mistreatment).
Comments
I agree FNS has done a good job in reducing errors, but the last GAO report (http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-07-422T) shows they still have a ways to go.
Having pushed the idea of graduated reductions in payments on my blog (rather than a cutoff at $200K) it's fascinating that such an approach might enable farmers to contest the release of data.
Of course, we now have the Obama-Coburn legislation in place, which seems to me to require the same sort of data base for all federal program payees as EWG has constructed for farmers.
Posted by: Bill Harshaw | March 26, 2007 3:48 PM
If you want to know how the government is wasting food stamps, indigents hit with 250$ DUI schools, 500$ late traffic fines, or 500$ auto insurance costs are turning around and going on food stamps to get this money back so they can have something to eat.
I requested a survey (thru the Montana DPHHS), and the survey (done in Billings, MT) indicated that 18 of the 96 food stamp applicants listed DUI costs, fines, or mandatory auto insurance as a reason for applying for food stamps. We allow time payments for 500$ fines (so the indigent does not go on food stamps), but then when the fine goes delinquent, the gov't requires the 500$ to be paid immedieately and the logic goes out the window, and the indigent gets 500$ of food stamps to replace the 500$ fine or auto insurance.
If the laws were changed in this country (community service for late fines, low cost auto insurance for indigents, etc, I think the food stamp program could save 100 million dollars per year.
Posted by: Don Birkholz | March 27, 2007 2:31 PM
I hear commercials all the time in Oklahoma about how to go about being qualified for Nutrional Assistance Programs, ie FOOD STAMPS.
I'm not opposed to helping people that clearly need the help, however I am opposed to those that are just too lazy or fat to get off their duffs and get a job or two to support themselves.
Posted by: tom | April 4, 2007 11:10 AM
When the farm program first came out the govt told the farmers if you will gurantee us a steady supply of food, we will compensate you in order to keep this steady supply coming. While i do agree there needs to be some adjustments on the upper end. We are getting the same price as we did 40 years ago for our product however all the expenses have gone thru the roof. We are the price takers not the price makers.Although i agree with you that there are poor people i subsidsize my farm income with real estate rentals. My tenants are generally good people however receiving assistance is readily available therefore there is no incentive to try to better themselves.i have no problem with short term help.Why is the burdenput on us alone to supply cheap food for low income people? 80% of the problems that i see with low income people that i deal with involves alcohol.
Posted by: David Olson | April 7, 2007 9:50 PM
discouraging to read
Posted by: Anonymous | April 13, 2007 3:32 AM
I provide a space for animals and birds to congregate on my farm in a county where there is little government owned land. What does the welfare person provide?????????
Posted by: Anon | April 14, 2007 5:13 PM
Why do farms gets subsidies, but still grow crops such as watermelons? They are making a profit from the melons and receiving a subsidy concurrently.
Posted by: Ida Frost | April 16, 2007 12:07 AM
Please tell me wht one of the requirements to receive food stamps or any government assistance does not require a urine test.
In order for the majority of us working folks. We have to provide a sample of urine to be able to work. So, shouldn't these recipiants have to give a sample too?
Posted by: Bonnie Stockner | April 16, 2007 9:43 AM
It does not seem to bother our government that they help some families make a lifestyle of being on welfare and/or foodstamps. Yet, many other families and especially single people without children as dependants get no assistance from our government. I know this because I am one. When I fell on hard times, no government agency would help because I had no children.
Posted by: Sylvia | April 21, 2007 2:29 PM
Food stamp people are generally not getting rich over their subsidy the way our farmers are. It has inflated the price of food, and allowed our Nebraska farmers to winter in Florida. Generally the farmers don't want to be bothered with animals anymore and who can blame them. Work is required and there is no subsidy. What a great program!! Can they top this with a new program this year. Vote Republican!!
Posted by: van | April 28, 2007 7:46 AM
The average farmer is NOT getting rich off of subsidy's. It's the farm corporations that are abusing it. Don't look at this and think all farmer's are doing this, it is a small majority. That would be like saying all single parent's get welfare. We could make a killing (ha ha $60 an acre here-$1200 a year) if we took the conservation subsidy and did not farm. Then people would complain because there wasn't enough hay to feed livestock and really drive up the prices at the supermarket. Don't you just love when un-informed people jump on the bandwagon and pigeonhole a community of people-farmers.
Posted by: Farmer | May 10, 2007 2:22 AM
Amen Mr farmer. Your post is right on. The bleeding heart liberals want people to believe that farmers are fat cats, who are sitting back making hundreds of thousands of dollars for doing nothing. Without the subsidies, only a few muti-mega farms would exist, and food prices would soar through the roof. How many average Joe Americans have to pay $250,000+ (for a combine), $200,000+ (for a tractor), $100,000+ (for a planter), pay $300,000+ (for input costs), and God knows how many thousands for cash rent, all in hopes of making a pay check ? The average Joe couldn't cut the life of a farmer. Bottom line - don't complain with your mouth full ! If you don't like how the system works, move to a 3rd world country where you can sit on the side of the pot holed road, swatting flies from your eyes and begging for another tin of gruel or hand out grain from the USA.
Posted by: Knows Better | May 15, 2007 4:32 PM
When are you going to start publishing the amount of money that the taxpayers provide for illegal immigrants?
Posted by: John | May 16, 2007 8:58 PM
I have read the posts and the articles. I have even looked through the subsidies given to farmers in my area. The issue should be who is getting government assistance. One of the corporate co-owner of a farm in my area is a lawyer. They get more subsidies than others. Farming is hard work and I have no issue with those who deserve the subsidies getting them. I want to be sure they can pass a litmus test of being a farmer, not simply receiving corporate welfare. For a short period of time in my life I was a single parent and received food stamps. I never received cash money and I never lived high on the hog. My children never wore designer clothing. But they would have starved without that assistance because the $9000.00 a year I earned working full time simply was not enough to put food on the table and a roof over their heads etc.... We cannot listen to the hype and judge who deserves and who does not. I really don’t think any of you would have wanted to walk a mile in my shoes during that period of time in my life. I have long since paid back what I was given in the tax dollars that go to supplement others. The only tax dollars handed out that I resent are to the same people who live high on the hog while lobbying to make sure I didn’t receive a raise in pay because it might cut into their corporate bottom line. I would be for publishing food stamps recipients if corporate welfare recipients names were also published along with each one’s annual income. When a corporation receives its highest profits in the billions of dollars and is still receiving millions in welfare from tax payers, I get a little heated under the collar. When family farms are turned into corporations of people who wouldn’t know the end of a plow from the end of a mule, they are squeezing out the little guy for their land, getting subsidies, raising the price of food and putting unhealthy garbage on our food so they can make even more money, I get a little heated under the collar. Especially when those same corporations are lobbyist controlling the bills that become law in this country and making sure they are favored. Quit blaming food stamps and liberals; take a real look at where the lion share of your tax dollars are going, it certainly isn’t to the poor.
Posted by: Sheryl Stiles | June 11, 2007 5:28 PM
ID fraud for personal welfare is wide spread. Studies in TX and MI found over 1/3 of all the identities collecting welfare were fake.
California state was so stupid they were mailing a dozen welfare checks to the same address in Reno, Nevada - for years.
Despite these figures, there has been no systematic crack down because it's viewed as 'racist' to enforce the law.
ANGRY AMERICAN: We are not familiar with the studies you reference. We are familiar with the significant improvements that have been made dealing with fraud in the federal Food Stamp program that is authorized by the farm bill.--COOK
Posted by: Angry American | June 14, 2007 5:46 PM
I get sick and tired of people stigmatizing food stamp recipients.
The jobs I can find and am qualified for don't pay enough to support my family without the help. We don't have anything approaching a living wage in this country. Do I want something for nothing? Absolutely not. I just want decency.
Food stamps REALLY subsidize the big corporations that pay starvation wages. How 'bout that?
Go back to school? Sure, work 60 hours a week and take care of 2 kids as a divorced parent and go to school. I'm past 50 years old. By the time I get reeducated, nobody's going to hire me anyway. And it isn't possible to work 2 jobs. I've got to parent my kids. I've got a lot on my plate.
There are a lot of us stuck between a rock and a hard place.
The only reason those of you who are more fortunate look down on the rest of us is the same reason people blame the victims of crime for being victims. You think if you're careful enough and do the right things, it won't happen to you. If it happens to somebody else, it must be their fault - and you then feel safe.
We mistakenly think we're in complete control of our own destiny. I've got news for you - bad things can happen to anybody. A run of bad luck can reduce a solidly middle class family to destitution and, gasp, food stamps and/or welfare. I've seen it happen.
In my state, cash welfare (which we do not receive) is less than $300 per month for a family of 3. Oh boy, I think I'll run right out and sign up and get rich! Yippee!
From some of the comments, it's obvious a higher income is not indicative of more brains or common sense.
Posted by: tallerthinner | June 28, 2007 5:33 PM
A man is trying a very unusual way to propose to his girlfriend. He wants people to forward an email to as many people as possible and he hopes that it will eventually get to his girlfriend. Details here: http://www.proposal-to-mary.com
Here is what he wants people to send by email:
You could help me a lot to spread my proposal to Mary – it is important that it is distributed as widely as possible so that it eventually reaches Mary. If you would like to support my proposal to Mary, please send the following text by email to a lot of people :-)
------------- SNIP (email text end) ---------------
WHEN YOU RECEIVE THIS, PLEASE HELP TO DISTRIBUTE IT TO OTHER PEOPLE!
For a long time I have tried to find a special way to propose marriage to my girlfriend Mary, whom I know for five years now. I wanted it very special, romantic and memorable, something our grandchildren would still remember.
And here is my idea: I will send out the proposal to Mary to 50 complete strangers, people I don't know - hoping, that they will forward my proposal to as many people as possible, which in turn forward it etc. And some day, I hope, it will reach Mary, after it has travelled a very long way. I know, it will take a long time and I am quite nervous…
From the poem MY Mary will know immediately that the proposal is for her.
I have created a homepage ( http://www.proposal-to-mary.com ) where you can find the current status of my quest. You can use the homepage to check if the proposal has already reached Mary (in that case it is not necessary anymore to forward the mail).
Once the proposal has reached Mary, I will put a note on these pages. Also I will publish there how many people have read the proposal so that everybody can see how far it has spread and that it is getting closer to Mary.
And of course you will find there what I am waiting for most: Mary's answer! I can't tell you, how nervous I am… Will she accept my proposal? Will she like the unusual way how she got it, through the hands of thousands of messengers all over the world?
Please cross your fingers for me! And please - help me by sending the mail to as many people as possible, to help it spread, so that it eventually reaches Mary.
And here is my proposal:
Mary, please forgive me, as you know English is not my native language. And I am not a poet. But I mean it from my heart.
My angel,
Five years ago, I will always remember the day When fate made us meet, blissful Alaskan moments in May Earth spun around us and a journey began Love, warmth, happiness, enough the years to span.
The longer it lasts the more grows our bond And with 80 still - of you I will be fond Whatever happens, I will stay at your side Through good and bad, together let us stride
No second with you was ever wasted
You are the sweetest I have ever tasted
We have spent so many years - why not a life?
Mary, will you marry me - and become my wife?
Mary, if you have received that and have recognized me, then give me a sign so that I can continue with the romantic part of my proposal…
------------- SNIP (email text end) ---------------
Posted by: Cruisaaquasty | October 23, 2007 3:24 PM